I liked the long version.  :-)

I'm surprised politicians don't propose a more results-oriented approach.  That is, use the economy and GDP as a primary measure of success but advocate limited use of regulation and "socialism" as/if/when measures like percent wealth inequity reach certain levels of disparity.  In essence, the see-saw effect of our two party system ought to do that, but I think the cycle time is longer than what many of us would like.  It would seem to me that the radical expansion of social services that occurred under Kennedy and Johnson went too far and didn't really solve any of the problems they were designed to.  Meanwhile, it might be said that the no-government-is-good-government ethos of the Reagan crowd might have run its course, too - but it was really just course correction.  (Ooh - I'll get flamed for that!) 

Where the big government/incompetent government Bush administration fits on this curve is anyone's guess. 

But I think it will be hard for a Republican president to curb the excesses of the Bush administration as it's always hard for the party in power to turn on itself.  On the other hand, a moderate Democrat could have some success.